8 ms·
Rice University Says Middle-Class And Low-Income Students Won't Have To Pay
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y agoUnequivocally good but this does raise a question to my mind. So the dividing lines are $65,000, $130,000 and $200,000. What proportion of Rice's undergrads come from each of those four income brackets?
- psychometry 8y agoWhy does seemingly every university rolling out these sorts of plans set hard cutoffs instead using a simple equation for doling out aid? Under the current plan, if your family makes $130,000/year, you go for free. But if you make $130,001/year, you pay thousands? It's so absurd.
- arcanus 8y agoI'm also skeptical a family (of let's say, four) ceases to be middle class at just 130k, even in Houston.
- rayiner 8y agoIn the U.S., we have a very skewed definition of who the "middle class" is. In Germany, incomes above about $65,000 are taxed at almost the highest bracket (42%, highest is 45%). Above $130,000 is squarely in the top quantile of incomes, and folks in that bracket (between top 20% and top 1%) have increased their incomes dramatically over the last four decades: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/07/27/really-its-not-just-the-1-percent/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/07... (see the second chart).
- chrischen 8y agoI think it's not correct to directly compare on-paper salaries between regions. There's the simple fact that a lot of the personal benefits from a certain place can be derived from public services or benefits paid through by taxes. For example, in the US you have to pay your own health insurance, but in many other places it may be covered by taxes. Therefore your US on-paper salary it may be higher due to this fact because you would have to pay for health insurance.
- rayiner 8y agoBut those other places pay for those things by heavily taxing the folks that would be considered "middle class" here. In Germany, folks making $65,000 or so pay 7.3% of their income (with another 7.3% being paid by their employer) for health insurance, on top of their taxes.
- harimau777 8y agoWhat sort of lifestyle do people making $65000 have? In the US if you taxed $65,000 at 42% there would be almost no cities where you could live comfortably and securely. As a conservative estimate for a small city I would say: mortgage: $6,000 car payment: $2,400 gas: $1,560 food: $1,560 retirement: $10,000 That leaves about $11,500 for clothing, entertainment, emergency savings, vacation, education, etc.
- rayiner 8y agoTheir tax system is progressive too, so just the money above $65,000 is taxed at 42%.
- filmgirlcw 8y agoIn this scenario, you're way overestimating with $10k for retirement. Put that figure at $5k or maybe even $3k. Long-term, is that ideal? Not really -- but as you say, you need to budget for clothing, entertainment, emergencies, vet bills, etc. Regardless, people and families do it all the time and do it on less.
- ams6110 8y agoMost Americans making $130K (or even $65K) are not paying for health insurance -- at least not fully. Their employer is paying at least a large share of it. You could argue that it is money that they could otherwise be paid as salary, but then they would either have to pay full cost for private insurance or be taxed more to pay for public health care. What they are paying for that the average middle-class German may not be (at least not as much) is savings for educating their children and for their own retirement.
- harryh 8y agoBecause of they way your comment is worded, it sounds like your 2nd graph is still referring to German incomes where it's actually referring to US incomes.
- souprock 8y agoHeh. I have a family of 13. The kids can get generic AA degrees at the local community college, because that is only $80 per credit hour and they don't need dorms or dining plans. Scholarships do not exist for normal kids.
- angersock 8y agoWhy'd you have so many kids? No cable? :P
- amreact 8y agoYou may not have intended to come across this way, but I have heard comments similar to yours made to my parents (I have quite a few siblings) and they are offensive. Think about what it: you're asking about someone's love life. It is no business of yours. So if you're going to ask a question like that, please be respectful. For example, say "If you don't mind my asking, why did you have so many kids?"
- souprock 8y agoI'm not really sure. Many reasons seem to contribute to it. My wife is hard-core Catholic. Her uncle fell apart mentally after losing his only daughter, so having extras is sort of a backup plan. Kids can be fun. Having kids is pretty much the meaning of life.
- angersock 8y agoHa, awesome! Kids are super neat--it's just interesting seeing if that was from marrying into additional kids (have seen this with second and third marriage couples) or if they come from the marriage directly.
- w0m 8y ago> Scholarships do not exist for normal kids Honestly, this sounds harsh but in the US, if the scholarships don't exist (and are needed) then maybe those kids shouldn't go to (that? or any?) college. There is a perception that everyone needs to go to college that we clearly have to quash. There is nothing dishonorable or lowly about being a tradesma, the 'need to go to college' stigma needs to die.
- gyrccc 8y agoThey are indeed doing a graduation reduction: > Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition. Presumably there're more nuanced factors to consider for families with incomes between $130k and $200k beyond what can be expressed by a simple equation.
- psychometry 8y agoI'm right. From their own website: https://financialaid.rice.edu/thericeinvestment https://financialaid.rice.edu/thericeinvestment
- darawk 8y agoTotally agree. It's incredible to me that people still do this in the design of all sorts of things. Welfare systems, insurance, etc.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- qntty 8y agoBased on the article, that may very well be what they're doing, and the equation hits 0 at an income below $130,000 If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
- augustocallejas 8y ago> But if you make $130,001/year, you pay thousands? No. From the article: > Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
- psychometry 8y agoI'm right. From their own website: https://financialaid.rice.edu/thericeinvestment https://financialaid.rice.edu/thericeinvestment
- kss238 8y agoYou're wrong and misunderstanding the website. That is only the minimum they guarantee for each income bracket. Someone earning $65,001 will have substantially the same finaid package as someone making $65,000. Go try out the npc and see for yourself.
- psychometry 8y agoI'm not misunderstanding the website; I'm just reading what's written on it and there is no mention of an additional within-bracket gradient.
- yardie 8y agoGive $2 to non-profit or political campaign. Your income is $129,999. Better? This sort of horse trading happens everyday in our tax system.
- baldeagle 8y agoIn the US, political donations are not deductible on personal income - which would likely mean they are not deductible here either.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- psychometry 8y agoNo, that's asinine and not better at all since it doesn't address the problem.
- mankash666 8y agoWhy is financial aid tied to family income? Why isn't it granted in order of merit? Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt, regardless of how good he/she is.
- darawk 8y agoIt should be pretty self-evident why financial aid is tied to family income: to equalize opportunity.
- axaxs 8y agoHow does it equalize opportunity? 130K a year with a family is solidly middle class, maybe even on the lower end in some communities. They are likely not going to be paying for tuition, meaning it will get punted as student debt. This is punishment for children who were so absurd as to have two working parents more than 'equalizing'.
- darawk 8y agoI'm not a fan of a cliff at 130k. I think that's stupid. It should be an (algorithmic) sliding scale based on socioeconomic factors.
- mankash666 8y agoNo - this isn't equal opportunity, it's equal outcome. The outcome mandated is college admission. True equal opportunity would grant aid on a merit system. Unless your argument is that familial wealth impacts merit, which I'd like to see evidence of, it's the fairer way to administer aid.
- tylerhou 8y agoPoorer people are “dumber” because they presumably have to devote more background compute to e.g. figuring how how to pay rent: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13830 http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13830
- sct202 8y agoI wonder what the distribution of parental income is of the students at Rice that they can offer such generous grants. Even with a household income between $130-200k, they're offering at least half off tuition. An income of $200k+ is well over the 90th percentile of households.
- macspoofing 8y agoI'm sure they did the math. They aren't going to lose money.
- dynamicwebpaige 8y ago:( Former student from Rice, and can definitely attest to this. I received full a full tuition scholarship when I matriculated in 2008; the number of students in a similar situation was in the dozens. Potential attendees are accepted based on SAT scores; class rank; extracurricular activities; etc.; and if the applicants make it through all of those bandpass filters, they're awarded full-tuition scholarships.
- macspoofing 8y agoYep. Common to other ivy league schools that also have 'free tuition'. I seem to remember Yale (or Harvard or both) making a similar announcement a few years ago.
- bytematic 8y agoRoman Mars talked about this with another Ivy League where they offered free tuition. It ended up affecting a single digit amount of students.
- jjoonathan 8y agoWhere was that? Numbers from one usual suspect: > Our program requires no contribution from Harvard families with annual incomes below $65,000. About 20% of our families have no parent contribution.
- j45 8y agoBesides access to education, is there much that can lift the quality of life for generations than meaningfully transferable education to a career path. Having access to meaningful, transferable and applicable education (one that can be equally applied without a huge saddle of student debt) is a life changer, less so for those who already enjoy privilege and access to opportunity.
- geebee 8y agoThis is interesting, and I think it may explain why so many members of my own family growing up (and now) have gone to University of California schools. This article from the NYTimes really drove it home: Top Colleges are Cheaper Than You Think (Unless You're Rich). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/05/opinion/columnists/what-college-really-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/05/opinion/colum... The data is very interesting. They analysis breaks down family income into different socioeconomic categories, poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, affluent, and very affluent. Well, it turns out the analysis is largely correct - there is substantial reduction in costs for all but the last two categories, "affluent" and "very affluent." But look at the graph - it's fascinating. There's a meaningful break for every income, but very little difference between what the "Affluent" (family income $186k) and "Very Affluent" ($246k a year). If you look at the graph, there's a big drop in what you pay below affluent, but "affluent" and "very affluent" pay roughly the same amount. Here's the thing - that's true at publics as well as privates, but top publics max out at about half the rate of a private (the only one considered here is university of Virginia, UC schools are left off, not sure why). In other words, even if you pay full freight, there's a limiting factor to total costs. The pattern of what various economic groups pay as a percentage of max is the same for UVA and more expensive privates like the ivies, it's just that the whole thing is compressed into a 0-30K/year range instead of a 0-75k/range. I think that this upper limit appeals immensely to people in the "affluent" but not "very affluent" category. Because they'll be paying "full costs", but are still limited in resources compared to the "very affluent" group, the actual upper limit ends up mattering a great deal. I grew up in that economic band (affluent but not very affluent), and want to be sure I'm clear on this, "Affluent" as defined here is most definitely not an oppressive place to be from. Actually, it's harder now, in my day (grew up in the 1970s), the equivalent of affluent had no trouble buying a pleasant 3-4 br house in nice if unfashionable part of San Francisco (now: no) But it does mean 3 kids at an ivy may be cost prohibitive, even for an "Affluent" family. UC schools (or UVA or others), on the other hand, have an upper limit (we were all in state) that makes it more possible. In short, state schools work as equalizers between the affluent and very affluent.
- mhb 8y agoWhen there are reports about these programs, they only talk about income. The Rice site doesn't mention this either, but do they only look at income and not savings that families might have?
- rhcom2 8y agoThey include assets but not retirement funds. https://financialaid.rice.edu/rice-investment-faqs https://financialaid.rice.edu/rice-investment-faqs
- colordrops 8y agoA huge problem I find with financial aid policy at many educational institutions, from elementary school all the way to university, is that the aid is often cut off at a specific threshold. For instance, if you are making $149,999 a year, you might qualify for $20k financial aid. But if you are making $150,000, you get none. So the two families with nearly identical situations are given grossly different treatment. I don't understand why it's not a continuous scale that just approaches zero at a certain point, rather than these hard cut-offs. edit: just saw that someone else made a similar comment. Mine is referring to education in general and not the article specifically, and in fact I have personally run into this situation. It seems that educational institutions would be by definition smarter about how they handle this.
- Someguywhatever 8y agoWell you could make it a ratio of: [your income]/[maxincome] * [MaxFinancialAid] But then you would end up with situations where people can borrow $500 which is useless. So they just allow it up to 150k and then make it a hard cut off as they feel that anybody who makes that much should absolutely be able to pay, and the administration costs of loaning < 10k could be a waste of time lets say.
- colordrops 8y agoBut $500 is still a lot to a family who's margins are very tight. Or $2000 for a family that is closer to the threshold.
- Someguywhatever 8y agoNobody would administer a loan for $500 though, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for financial institutions
- RickJWagner 8y agoKudos to Rice for this one. FWIW, I took a game programming MOOC from Rice. (I knew nothing of game programming going in.) It turned out to be a great experience, I really enjoyed it. Thanks, Rice!